Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MEP2014-00029 - MEP Inspections - 7/7/2016
MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT($630 or$380 w/other permit) Mason County Permit Center Use: ❑ CONDITIONAL USE($1520) MEP,;) t' � ❑ HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW($445) Date Rcvd C6,&�cc,( -- ( --711 Lt MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mason County Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC) ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32,36.70A,39.34,58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW. PLEASE PRINT 1.PROPERTY OWNER Name: Mason County Facilities Parks and Trails Mailing Address: 411 North 5th Street, Shelton,WA 98584 Work Phone: (360) 427-9670 Email Address: johnk@co.mason.wa.us Home/Cell Phone: (360) 535-2502 Fax#: (360) 427-7765 If an agent is acting for the property owner during the permit process, complete#2. 2.AUTHORIZED AGENT Name: Bob Droll Mailing Address: 4405 7th Avenue SE,Suite 203, Lacey,WA 98503 Work Phone: (360)456-3813 Email Address: bob@rwdroll.com Home/Cell Phone: 360 481-6479 Fax# 3.PROJECT SITE Site Address: 5093 E. State Route 106, Union,WA 98592 Parcel#: 32231-99-99999 &- 32231-88-8888 Legal Description: Sec 31,T22N,R3W Directions to Site: From US Hwy 101,approx.8.25 miles north of Shelton,turn onto State Rt 106. Follow 106 eastward 5 miles to the town of Union. From the intersection of SR106 and Main Street,follow SR106 350 ft. The Union Boat Ramp is on the left north side of hi hwa . Attach a site plan showing the following: Lot Dimensions,Flood Zones,Existing Structures,Fences, Water Lines,Driveways,Drainage Plans,Shorelines,Septic System,Topography,Proposed Improvements,Easements,North Arrow,and Scale. Also draw a separate topography diagram. 1 ACommunity DevelopmentTACMEP Page I of 2 Revised June 2010 4. State which section requires permit: ❑ Long Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Landslide Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Area,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑ Erosion Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.104 19 Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter ❑ In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 17.01.110 ❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 5. Identify current use of the property with existing improvements: The property is currently developed as a boat launch and has limited space for undelineated vehicle and trailer parking. 6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used,construction methods, principle dimensions,and other pertinent information(attach additional sheets, if needed): See attachment A 7. Describe why the action requiring this permit cannot be avoided. See attachment A 8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area(circle one)? Yes No 9. Identify any surface water on or adjacent to property(circle one): Saltwater Lake Stream Pond Wetland Drainage Ditch 10. Identify existing septic/sewer connection(circle one): If septic is located on project site, include records. Connected to Septic Connected to Community Septic Not Applicable 11. Identify existing water supply(circle one): Public Water Supply Well Not Applicable 11. Type of Job(circle one): New Add Alteration Repair Demolition Other: Replacement/Upgrade Print Name Sign ure Date L\Conununity Development\PAC\MEP Page AU Revised June 2010 Attachment A Responses to questions 6 and 7: 6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction methods,principle dimensions, and other pertinent information: The project site is in the town of Union, on Hood Canal. The site is a street Right-of- Way, 50'wide and 145'from OHW line to the SR106 Right-of-Way, and continuing waterward of the OHW line. The site's current use is a public boat ramp facility, and that use will continue with the proposed improvements. The project entails demolishing an existing, deteriorating concrete boat ramp and installing a new 16'wide x 102'long ramp of pre-cast concrete planks to provide better launch depth. A new floating dock system with a 5 ft. wide gangway for access from the upland will be installed. The dock will be held in place by eight 18"dia. steel pipe piles. Also,the existing gravel parking/driveway will be paved and striped, and an information kiosk will be constructed. Area of site improvements above OHW=7,500 sf. Area of improvements waterward of OHW=3,000 sf. Minor grading will be done in the upland parking& driveway. Average parking/driveway grade may be raised approx. 0.2 ft. Existing soil will be excavated to 8"depth. Fill in the upland will be crushed rock and asphalt in pavement areas, concrete at the ramp approach, and washed rock in landscape areas, all from local sources,totaling approx. 60 C.Y. The existing concrete ramp will be demolished and disposed off site. The amount of material to be removed, including the existing concrete ramp and material to accommodate the proposed concrete plank ramp, is expected to be approximately 72 c.y. A floating dock with a 5 ft.wide gangway and accessible ramp to the gangway will also be constructed Fill materials will be: Pre-cast concrete planks-28.7 cy; CSBC & steel rails for ramp base/subgrade - 16 cy; River cobble armor- 4.5 cy; 18" dia. steel pipe piles - 0.5 cy. Total fill =49.7 c.y. 7. Describe why the action requiring this permit cannot be avoided. The existing concrete ramp has been in place since prior to 1970, and is in a deteriorating condition. Erosion has occurred along the east edge of the ramp leaving a 12"+drop to the ground below,making the ramp unsafe for users. The new ramp will rectify that situation. Also,the existing ramp's end elevation is too high for launching boats during low tide. The new ramp will extend farther from shore and will end approximately 1 ft. lower that the existing ramp,thereby extending the ramp's usable time. Currently,there is no dock system and no place to moor a boat. The proposed dock will allow a boater to launch and moor a boat,then park his vehicle and trailer, allowing another user to do the same while the first user is still preparing for departure to open water. 50' FLOATING DOCK - 8'x7O' END OF DOCK IS 122' BEYOND I OHW LINE G I EXISTING CONCRETE RAMP TO BE DEMOLISHED °8 - 18" DIA. STEEL PILES / 16 __MC ELEV. -35 -�2 HOOD CANAL HOOD CANAL -- dl' PRECAST CONRETE PLANK RAMP - Q 16'x102' - 1,632 S.F. -�- I - ;STREAMBED COBBLE ARMOR - 250f S.F. APPROX. GOVT_MEANDER LINE APPR �—4_ - �-------'' -� �X GOVT MENDER 5'x64 ALUMINUM GANGWAY - —3-_ _ r M}�1��QE/ELEV.• +3.44 — _ ¢J ° . MHHWELEV.• +8.35�'_______- '` ---------� OHW ELEV. +10.28 2- - — CANAL ST. _ _ _ — — — _ _ _ EXIST. BULKHEAD 6-7' WIDE ACCESSIBLE(NOP"k GANGWAY OHW UNE SUPPORT, WOOD FRAMING W/ TREX DECKING ON STEEL PILES — 245f SF. _ -WASHED ROCK SURFACING, CONTINUOUS UNDERNEATH GANGWAY RAMP - 950 SF. INFORMATION KIOSK EXISTING 16' WIDE CONCRETE APPROACH TO BOAT I MARINA I RAMP - 510 SF. BUILDING I BLOCK 1 o EXIST. 6' WOOD FENCE TO 4 3 REMAIN IN PLACE BLOCK 210 PLAT OF UNION CITY VOL. 2 OF PLATS PG. 21 I o I 1 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY AND PARKING LOT - I 5,800f SF. lo ��cn j 21- I Rcp . R Rim: 11.88 11.17 - nii ii/irr,�i,�nirJ 1 FIRST S (VACATE[ REFERENCE #PAR-2008-00005 o-- SR 106 Ow 0 20 40 80 PURPOSE: PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BOAT RAMP & EXISTING PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH DOCK SYSTEM Union Boat Ramp LOCATION: SEC. 31 & 32 T 22N, IN: CITY OF UNION RANGE 3W, W.M. COUNTY OF:MASON, WA DATUM: WASHINGTON STATE PLANE APPLICATION BY: MASON COUNTY PARKS COORDINATE SYSTEM SOUTH ZONE, NAD Site Plan & TRAILS 83/91, FROM GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM SHEET: 3 OF 5 ELEVATIONS NAVD 88/FROM CPS DATE: 9/10/14 DWG NAME: 11037-JARPA_3-SitePlan.dw Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.1 AAr THE WETLAND CORPS Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation Union Boat Ramp Renovation Boat Ramp Replacement and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation Parcels:32231-88-88888 and 32231-W600000 Mason County,Washington Prepared for: Mason County Parks and Trails Department PO Box 2286 Shelton, Wa 98584 Prepared by: Heather Lane and Lee Boad August 2013 PO Box 2854. Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618. Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail. wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.2 AA THE WETLAND CORPS w,r b UNION BOAT RAMP RENOVATION BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................1 2.0 SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION......................................................................2 3.0 EFFECTS OF ACTION.........................................................................................................7 4.0 LITERATURE......................................................................................................................11 5.0 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment......................................................................................15 6.0 Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat For Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run Chum.........................................................................................17 7.0 Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal—Puget Sound Bull Trout.......19 Attachement 1: Figures Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Cross Section Figure 4. Profile Figure 5. Ownership Map Attachement 2: Photos Photo 1: Project area looking from the top of the ramp. Photo 2: Project area looking from the east. PO Box 2854. Belfair.WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail:wetlandcorps@hotmail.com r Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.3 OAV THE WETLAND CORPS 4,f Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation - Biological Evaluation August, 2013 Page 1 UNION BOAT RAMP RENOVATION BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION MASON COUNTY TAX PARCELS: 32231-88-88888 AND 32231-00-60000 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location: Sections 31 and 32, Township 22N,Range 03W Union, WA 98528 47*21127.61'N 1.23*06'01.86"W The project location is seen in Figure 1. B. Project Description: The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing boat ramp and construction of a new access ramp and dock structure in Hood Canal (Figures 1, 2 and 3). The proposed structure will consist of a 5' wide by 64' long ramp that will come down to an 8'wide by 701ong floating dock. The dock will be attached to eight 18" diameter steel pilings. Support arms attached to the pilings will suspend the floating dock 12" off the substrate at low tides (Figure 3). The dock will extend to a point of tidal elevation -3.5. The new boat ramp will consist of pre-cast concrete planks and occupy a 16' wide by 12' deep surface area. 18" of quarry spalls will be placed over a 210 sq ft area waterward of the ramp to prevent propeller scour. Photographs of the site are seen in Attachment 2. The steel pilings will be delivered to the site from State Route 106. The 18"diameter pilings will be driven with a barge-mounted 2,000 lb drop hammer. Set-up time for each piling is approximately 20 to 30 minutes, while actual driving time is about the same, depending on the conditions. This work is always done during daylight hours at high tide, with the barge floating, not resting on the substrate. The most landward pilings will be driven first, those farther out will be driven as the tide goes out. The pile driver will be in operation for approximately five hours. All fastenings and hardware will be hot dipped galvanized. The flotation will consist of 24" High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe floats. Flotation will be placed so that it does not obstruct the float grating. PO Box 2854. Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetiandcorps@hotmail.com Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.4 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 2 All treated lumber used for this project will meet or exceed the standards established in "Best p J Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments" developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute,revised July 1996 and amended April 17,2002. Best Management Practices (BMP) guidelines as enumerated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in the Hydraulic Project Approval (I-IPA) will be followed I during this' p roJ ect. C. Action Area: The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the proposed project location. This action area includes the area (25' surrounding each piling) in which potential turbidity plumes generated by pile driving may impact the listed fish species. The action area will also include the area in which pile-driving noise may affect nesting and wintering eagles, marbled murrelets and the listed fish species. 2.0 SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION A. Species Information In the project area, there are two salmon species, Hood Canal summer-run chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawylscha), listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Federal Register, Vol. 64, Nos. 56 and 57). NMFS also listed the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias juhatus) as threatened and both the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in October of 1999. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1978 and 1992 respectively. On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 1.2 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in the designated area for the Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run ESUs (Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations). On November 15, 2005, NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as endangered under ESA (Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 222 /November 18, 2005. On June 9, 2006, NOAA Fisheries proposed to designate critical habitat for killer whales. 'There are no confirmed sightings of Southern Resident killer whales inside Hood (Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday June 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules). Therefore, Hood Canal is not included in the proposed critical habitat areas. On March 29, 2006, NMFS proposed Iisting the Puget Sound steelliead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA (Federal Register/ Vol. 71,No. 60/Wednesday,March 29, 2006/ Proposed Rules. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.5 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 3 According to the USFWS, no special management protection for critical habitat has been designated for the bald eagle at this time. There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site (Federal Register/ Vol. 61, No. 102 / 1996). USFWS has designated critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout. The project site is on the shoreline designated as critical habitat in Hood Canal (Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / September 26, 2005). There is no designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions or leatherback sea turtles in Washington and no designated critical habitat for humpback whales at this time. Hood Canal Summer-run Chum: Chum salmon have the widest natural geographic and. spawning distribution of any Pacific salmon (Groot and Margolis 1991), and historically may have been the most abundant of all the salmon species(Heave 1961). In the Puget Sound area the spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams. Summer, fall and winter runs are present. Fall-run chum are most prevalent, but summer runs are found in the Hood Canal, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in southern Puget Sound (WDFW 1994). In the Hood Canal, the summer-run stocks spawn from early-September to mid-October, while spawning of the fall-run stocks begins about the third week in October and may continue into January(WDFW 1994). Juvenile chum in Washington begin migration downstream in late January and continue through May, although there is considerable variability in the onset of migration due to the large number of cues influencing migration (Simenstad et al. 1982 and Salo 1991). The migration to the estuarine environment usually happens immediately after emergence (Simenstad 1998), but juveniles have been reported to remain in freshwater streams for up to a month (Salo and Noble 1953 and Bostick 1955). Chum and ocean-type Chinook spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon (Dorsey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982). Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average residence of 24 days (Simenstad 1998). Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around eelgrass beds (harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods and isopods), but change their diet to drift insects and plankton such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50 — 60 mm. (Simenstad et al. 1982). Eelgrass beds are probably the main migration corridors for,juveniles, providing both forage opportunities and refuge from predation(Simenstad et al. 1982). As the spring and early summer season progress and plankton blooms and forage opportunities increase, the migration rate slows (Bax 1983). Simenstad and Sale (1982) found that as the food resources started to decrease in mid to late summer, juvenile chum tended to move offshore, suggesting a relationship between out migration and prey availability. Summer chum escapements in Hood Canal have generally experienced a continuous decline for the past 30 years. However, beginning P gtnning to 2003, escapements began to increase. In 2004, the escapements were the highest recorded during the period that total spawner numbers have been estimated (1974-2004) (WDFW and Point No Point Treaty Council 2005). Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound Chinook, also called the king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most Chinook in the Puget Sound are "ocean-type" and migrate to the marine environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.6 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 4 emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm., or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 min. (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthis crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type Chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival. Summer/fall-run Chinook have spawned in the Skokomish,Union, Tahuya, Duckabush, Dosewallips and Hamma Hamma Rivers in the past — all of these rivers empty into the Hood Canal. The Skokomish Chinook stock is currently rated "Depressed"due to the low returns of natural spawners (WDFW 2002). According to the WDFW a large number of the naturally spawning Chinook in the Skokomish are derived from hatchery strays from Hoodsport and George Adams hatcheries (WDFW 1994). Chinook of hatchery origin have been released in the Tahuya and Union rivers, and the genetic impacts are unknown. There fish are considered a stock of mixed origin (a stock whose individuals originated from comnungled native and non-native parents) with composite production (a stock sustained by both wild and artificial production)(Myers et al. 1998 and WDFW 1994). The Mid-Hood. Canal Chinook spawn in the Hamxna Hamma, Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers. This stock status is listed as"Critical"due to chronically low escapements (WFDW 2002). Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal- Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United. States (Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 210/ 1999). There are three bull trout subpopulations in the Skokomish River Basin. There is an isolated population in Lake Cushman (due to the construction of a dam on the North Fork Skokomish River), a second subpopulation occurs in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and a third subpopulation occurs in the upper North Fork Skokomish River above Staircase Fails (Staircase Falls is assumed to be a barrier to migration of the Lake Cushman stock into the upper North Fork Skokomish). The first two populations are considered "depressed"(with fewer than 500 spawners in each. population), and the third population is considered "unknown' because of insufficient information(Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 210/ 1999). Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.7 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 5 Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDFE 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other small schooling fish and invertebrates. There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site. Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), sand lance (Ammodyles hexapterus) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) as prey resources. These forage fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles. Most Washington State herring stocks spawn between mid-January and early April. Herring deposit transparent, adhesive eggs on intertidal and shallow subtidal eelgrass and marine algae (Figures 2 and 3). Eggs may be deposited anywhere between the upper limits of high tide to a depth of-40 feet, but most spawning takes place between 0 and -10 feet in tidal elevation. The on-line WDFW Pacific Herring Information Summary shows the nearest documented Herring spawning grounds to be over five miles west of the project site. Furthermore, there are no eelgrass beds within 300 feet of the project area that would be impacted by this project. Sand lance spawning occurs at high tide in shallow water on sand-gravel beaches. Sand lances will also use sand beaches for spawning. Surf smelt generally avoid sand beaches for spawning. However, on many gravel beaches, the eggs of winter-spawning surf smelt stocks and sand lance may be found incubating together in the same sediments. Suitable spawning habitat for sand lance is present within the project area. Surf smelt require sand/gravel substrates in the upper intertidal zone (tidal elevation of 7' up to 1' above the MHHWL) on which to deposit their eggs. Egg deposition occurs between September 15 and March 1 in the Hood Canal area. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has documentation of surf smelt spawning within the project area. Contact WDFW Forage Fish Unit, La Conner District Office @ 360-466-4345 x 243 for documentation references. Spawning takes place primarily on fine-grained sand substrates. Spawning can. take place on sheltered beaches, current- swept beaches on tidal passages and on exposed wave-swept beaches. They deposit their adhesive eggs in the upper intertidal zone (the area between +5' MLLW and MHHW). Spawn timing is from October 15 to March 1. Steller Sea Lions: Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska. Breeding colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon (Osborne et al. 1998). There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the Hood Canal area (Jeffries et al. 2000). although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter (October— May) where their visits are transitory. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p,8 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 6 Humpback Whales: Humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound, even though in the past they were much more prevalent (Angell and Balcomb 1982). There is no documentation of Humpback Whales in Hood Canal. Leatherback Sea Turtle: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington, even though they are occasionally seen along the coast (Bowlby et al. 1994). They are rarely seen in Puget Sound (McAllister, pers. comm.). Again, it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found in the Hood Canal near the project site. Southern Resident Killer Whales: The Southern Resident population consists of three pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004). "While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate their in Haro Strait, Boundary Passage, the Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait." During early autumn, these pods, especially J pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and Chinook salmon runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less than 5 meters deep (Baird 2001). There have been no confirmed sightings of Southern Resident killer whales inside Hood Canal. (Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 115 /Thursday,June 15,2005/Proposed Rules)./ Puget Sound Steelhead: According to the WDFW (1994), "In Hood Canal, three wild summer steelhead stocks and eight wild winter steelhead stocks have been identified_ Wild summer steelhead in the Skokomish. Duckabush, and Dosewallips rivers and wild steelhead in the Dewatto, Tahuya, Union, Skokomish, Hamma Hamma, Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers and Quilcene/Dabob bays tributaries are identified as wild stocks.? The summer steelhead run timing is from May through October and the winter run timing is from December through May. Populations of Puget Sound steelhead in the Hood Canal generally average less than 100 spawners per year(Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 60/ Wednesday, March 29, 2006/Proposed Rules). B. Environmental Baseline: Listed below are some of the parameters that are identified in the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Handbook as critical for the listed salmon. Habitat Elements: In the marine environment, one component that is very important for ocean going salmon is the forage habitat. Maintenance of available prey species, and in turn, their habitat requirements are critical. Eelgrass beds are well-documented forage areas for juvenile salmon (Simenstad and Sale 1982). It has been shown that the dominant prey species for outmigrating smaller juvenile chum salmon consist of benthic organisms such as harpacticoid copepods and gammarid amphipods (Simenstad et al. 1982) usually associated with eelgrass beds. No eelgrass present within within 300 feet of the project area. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.9 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 7 Water Quality: For poikilothermic organisms, including salmon, whose body temperature is determined by the ambient water, temperature is a critical environmental factor. Numerous biological and physical mechanisms, such as digestion rate, metabolic rate, appetite, predatory-prey interactions growth rate and g cues for migration just to name a few, are inextricably linked with the temperature of the water where they live. It seems unlikely that the proposed ramp renovation and dock construction will cause measurable temperature changes in the area. Sediment/turbidity episodes have also been identified as critical to the incubating eggs of salmon. Without proper aeration, the eggs have the potential of suffocating. However, this project area is not within,or in proximity to, potential spawning habitat. 3.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project has been described and the action area defined. A habitat survey has been provided. When reviewing all the data, the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered. A. Direct Effects: When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project will immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to pile driving. Pile driving noise: Feist et al. (1992) reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000' from the source. Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport, these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and churn salmon. Noise from pile driving may mask the approach of predators. The impacts of pile driving noise depend upon the number of fish present in the area, the distance of the fish from the site and the duration of the pile driving process. Pile driving noise at this site will probably have short-term impacts on the listed fish species. The pile driver will be in operation for approximately five hours and pile driving will take place during an approved work window (discussed below), which will minimize contact with the listed fish. Marbled murrelets spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDFW 1993). There are no critical nesting habitats or nests within close range of the project. No murrelets have been observed in the area in the summer. It is unlikely that the brief pile-driving phase will impact any murrelets. Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused b pile driving could h' Y y p g co d have adverse effects on salmon and bull trout. The impact level depends on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity, the life stage during the increased exposure and the options available for the fish to avoid the plumes. The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 and Simenstad, editor, 1988). For this project, turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.10 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 8 The area where turbidity impacts may affect the listed fish has been defined by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) as a 25' radius around each piling. To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids, bull trout and spawning surf smelt, pile driving should take place during the work window from July 16 to September 14. Work during this period will reduce the possibility of contact with these species. Due to the scarcity of Steller sea lions, humpback whales, Southern Resident killer whales and leatherback sea turtles in the action area, it is concluded that the proposed project construction and its presence will have no effect on these four species. B. Indirect Effects Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might include alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation, reduction in prey resources and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure and increased boat use. Migratory pathway alteration: It is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter migration behavior of juvenile salmon (though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources and by shading aquatic plant life (Simenstad et al. 1999; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 b). However, the significance of these effects is not clear. A study by Williams et al. (2003) found that "Salmon fry were observed in all nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). Fry were observed both outside the terminal (Mukilteo ferry terminal) and underneath the terminal at all times an shadows i d sha o s produced by the 10- m-wide terminal structure did not appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location". As seen in the study by Williams and in many other studies (see the recent literature review by Weitkamp — 2003), there are studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures. Of course, there are other studies indicating migration patterns are g altered by overwater structures. II None of the studies that report changes in sahnonid migration patterns caused by overwater structures have reported that these changes have a negative impact on salmonids. Increased predation: At this time, there is no evidence of docks aggregating salmonid predators in the Puget Sound (Ratte & Salo 1985; Cardwell et al. 1980; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 b). Dock jassociated structures, such as breakwaters, may serve s marine mammal haulout areas, but there is no scientific literature that states that these mammals are particularly targeting small outmigrating juveniles. It might be assumed that birds would be interested in small migrating juveniles, but there is no evidence that docks provide an aggregation site for predatory birds(Taylor and Willey 1997). Shading and crushing impacts: Shading caused by overwater structures and float grounding can reduce or eliminate eelgrass, macroalgae and other epibenthis organisms. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.11 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 9 The following design parameters will lessen both shading and crushing impacts on the benthic environment: • The ramp and floating dock will have a minimum two-foot wide grating installed down its middle to allow for sunlight. ■ The floating dock will be suspended by support arms at 12" above the seabed at low tide to minimize contact with native substrate. Boating impacts: Boating activity can cause damage to the aquatic habitat due to prop scour and increased turbidity. In several studies, aquatic vegetation and benthic organisms were found to be absent or greatly reduced in areas where boat traffic was high and the propellers were within one foot of the bottom (Chumra and Ross 1978, Ogilvie 1981). Langler (1950) found that propellers within approximately 14" of the bottom removed all plants and silt within a swath approximately 5' wide. Conversely, boat use over deeper water can actually stimulate aquatic plant growth by increasing the dissolved carbon dioxide and increasing water circulation (Warrington 1999). Pollution from exhaust can have indirect adverse effects on the listed fish. Warrington (1999) concluded from his study of the literature that, "There is no significant effect of outboard exhaust on zooplankton, phytoplankton, periphyton or other aquatic invertebrates in the bulk water." However, he also concluded that there are no acceptable works on exhaust effects on salmonids. Fuel spills are another potential source of pollution. Crude oil and petroleum produce behavioral changes in fish at low concentrations, with physiological impacts occurring at higher concentrations (Warrington 1999). The project site is located near a marina; however, the possibility of increased fuel spills at the site is remote. Refueling will not take place at the proposed structure. C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects: Completion. of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species regulated under ESA will occur because of this project. D. Take Analysis: The ESA (Section 3) defines "take" as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, would, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering." It is likely that no "take" will result from this project. E. Conservation Measures: Pile driving should take place between July 16 to September 14. Pile driving during this time will minimize direct impacts on migrating salmon, bull trout and spawning surf smelt. Over-water work may have to be undertaken outside of the work window. This over-water work may consist of installing railings, cleats, or other dock accessories. The construction process will be brief and will produce no more noise or turbidity than normal boat activity on Hood Canal. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p12 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 10 Additional conservation measures will minimize adverse effects of the project. They include: 1. The ramp and float will be grated. 2. Support arms will suspend the float at least 12"above the seabed during low tides. 3. The new concrete boat ramp will not displace any additional surface area than the ramp it is replacing. F. Determination of Effect: After reviewing the project and completing a field review,the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound Chinook—"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 2. Hood Canal summer-run chum—"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 3. Bull trout—"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 4. Puget Sound Steelhead-"may affect,not likely to adversely affect" 5. Bald eagle—"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 6. Marbled murrelet- "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting pile-driving work to the approved work window will reduce direct impacts on the listed species. There will be no grounding impacts on the benthic environment. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the conservation measures discussed above. The availability of forage fish for bull trout, salmon, marbled murrelets and eagles will not be impacted. j 7. Steller sea lion—"No effect" 8. Humpback whale-"No effect" I 9. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect" III. Southern Resident killer whale-"No effect"" These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.13 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 11 Literature Anderson, B., J. Frost, L. McAllister,D. Pineo and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald eagles in Washington. Wash_ Wildl. 36(4): 13-20. Angell, T. and K.C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals gfPuget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 146 pp. Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676-701. Bax, N.J. 1983. The early marine migration of juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) through Hood Canal—its variability and consequences. Ph.D. thesis. UW, Seattle, WA. 196 pp. Beall, E.P. 1972. The use of predator-prey tests to assess the quality of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)fry. M.S. thesis. UW, Seattle, WA. Bernthal, C. Coordinator. 1999. Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Bostick, W.E. 1955. Duwamish River seining studies. In: Puget Sound stream studies, pp. 5-6. Wash. Dep. Fish. Olympia, WA. Bowlby, D.E., G.A. Green and M.L. BonneR. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Cardwell, R.D., S.J. Olsen, M.l. Carr and E.W. Sanborn. 1980. Biotic, water quality and hydrologic characteristics of Skyline Marine in 1978. TechRep. 54, Washington Dept. of Fisheries. Chumra, G.L. and N.W. Ross. 1978. The environmental impacts of marinas and their boats. A literature review with management implications, Marine Advisory Service, University of Rhode Island. Narragansett, RI. Dorcey, A.H.J., T.G. Northcote and D.V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser River marshes essential to salmon? Westwater Research Center, Lecture 1, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Federal Register/ Vol. 61,No. 102 /May 24, 1996 I Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/ Vol. 64,No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 57/March 25, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64, No.210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 170 /Friday, September 2. 2005 /Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 185 /Monday, September 26,2005 /Rules and Regulations. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.14 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction. Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 12 Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 222/November 18, 2005 /Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 115 /Thursday, June 15, 2006/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 60/Wednesday, March 29,2006/Proposed Rules Feist, Blake E.,J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992.Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. FRI-US- 9603, Fish. Res. Inst., UW, Seattle, WA. Groot, C. and L. Margolis (eds.). 1991.Life history of Pacific salmon, UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, . 315 -341. In: PPo Y � pP V.S. Kennedy(ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY. I Jeffries, Steven J.,Patrick J. Gearin,Harriet R. Huber, Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA. 150 pp. Johnson,Orlay W., W. Stewart Grant, Robert G. Kope, Kathleen Neely, F. William Waknitz, and Robin S. Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon,and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMRS-NWESC--32. 280 pp. Lang-ler, K.F., A.S. Hazzard, W.E. Hazen and W.A. Tompkins. 1950. Outboard motors in relation to fish behavior, fish production and angling success. Transactions of the 1.5`h Annual North American Wildlife Conference. pp. 280—303. Myers,J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Tell, L.J. Lierheimer,T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon,and California. U.S. Dept.of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-35, 443 pp. Neave, F. 1961. Pacific salmon: ocean stocks and fishery developments. Pac. Sci. Congr. Proc. 1957(I): pp. 59-62. Nightingale,Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp. Ogilvie, M.A. 1981. The mute swan in Britain, 1978. Bird Study. 28: 87— 106. Osborne, R.,J. Calambokidis and E.M. Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals ofgreater Puget Sound. Island Publishers, Anacortes, WA. 191 pp. Osborne, R.W. 2003. Southern resident killer whale sighting compilation 1990-2003. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, WA 98250. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.15 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 13 Ralph, C. John, Sherri J. Miller, Linda L. Long, Brian P. O'Donnell, Michelle McKenzie and Kim Hollinger. 1997. Annual Report. Marbled murrelet and landbird research. Redwood Sciences Laboratory,U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Ratte, L. and E.O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in Commencement Bay. Report to Port of Tacoma, FRI-US-8508, Fish. Res. Inst. UW, Seattle, WA. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rp1. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,Ogden UT. 38 pp- Salo, E.O. and R.E. Noble. 1952. Chum salmon upstream migration. Minter Creek Biological Station Prog. Rep. (Sept. — Oct. 1953). Wash. Dept. Fish, Olympia, WA. Schwartz,Maurice L. et al. 1991.Net shore-drift in Washington state: Volume 4, Hood Canal region. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Simenstad, C.S. and E.O. Salo. 1982. Foraging success as a determinant of estuarine and nearshore carrying capacity of juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in Hood Canal, Washington, pp. 21-371. In: B.R. Melteff and R.A. Veve(eds.),Proceedings of the North Pacif1c Aquaculture Symposium, Alaska Sect Grant Rpt. 82-2. Simenstad, C.A., K. L. Fresh and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. pp. 343-364. In: V.S. Kennedy, (ed.),Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York, NY. Simenstad, C.A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes. Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant,Seattle, WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad, Charles A., Coordinator. 1998. Estuaring landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions.University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903,Task A2, 116 pp. +appendices. Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books,New York,NY. 227 pp. Taylor, W.S. and W.S. Willey. 1.997. Port of Seattle f sh migration study. Pier 64/65 short-stay moorage facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beck Consultants, Inc. Draft report to the Port of Seattle. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, RGP-6: Maintenance, Modification and Construction of Residential Overwater Structures in Inland Marine Waters within the State of Washington. February 14, 2005. Warrington, P.D. 1999. Impacts of outboard motors on the aquatic environment. Butch Boad 360-277.3216 p.16 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 14 www.nalms.orci/bclss/l*m.pactsrecreationboat.htm Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock.Inventory,Appendix One,Puget Sound Stocks, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Volume. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2002. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) and Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC). February 10, 2005. Memorandum report: 2004 Progress report on Hood Canal summer chum salmon. 15 p. WDFW 2005. Marine Finfish, Shellfish, and Baseline GIS Coverages, Published Map Files, and the Map version of Tech Report 79. Plus Marine Protected Areas. Published in April, 2005. Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, WA. Wiles, G.J. 2004, Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp. Williams,G.D., R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler,J.A. Southard, L.K. O'Rourke, S.L. Sergeant, V.I., R. Moursund, and M. Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure—Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon: Field Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation.Under a Related Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.17 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 15 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment A. Bacicground The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the relevant species. According to the MSA, EFH means "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For the Pacific West Coast, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) has designated EFH for federally managed groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC 1998b) and Pacific salmon fisheries.(PFMC. 1999). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. Tlie purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize of otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH. B. Identification of EFH The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high water line, and upriver extend of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California, seaward to the boundary of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for salmon species extends from. the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extend of the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border(PFMC, 1999). C. Proposed Action The details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the attached BE. The project consists of replacement of an existing boat ramp and construction of a ramp and float structure extending into Hood Canal. D. Effects of the Proposed Action The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects Analysis section of the attached BE. The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for groundfish,coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(Chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)due to noise and turbidity impacts fi-om pile driving. E. EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached BE will be implemented to minimize any possible adverse effects to EFH. F. Conclusion Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.18 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 16 The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon, but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon (Chinook,coho and Puget Sound pink salmon) in the long term. G. Additional References PFMC(Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon(August 1999). PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental AssessmenVRegulatory Review for Amendment I I to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998). PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998). Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.19 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 17 6.0 Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat For Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Project description: Replacement of a Boat Ramp and Construction of a new ramp and float structure in Hood Canal. Applicant: Mason County Parks and.Trails Dept. COE reference: unknown at this time NMFS reference: unknown at this time The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead are: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Does not apply—the project is in the marine environment. Effects to PCE: None (2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Does not apply—the project is in the marine environment. Effects to PCE: None (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Existing Conditions: Does not apply—the project is in the marine environment. Effects to PCE: None Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.20 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 18 (4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: Small densities of macroalgae are likely present at the site, but no eelgrass is present within 300 feet. There is no submerged large wood or large trees adjacent to or within the project area. There are documented surf smelt spawning beaches at the site. There are no large rocks, boulders or side channels at the site. Effects to PCE: Pile driving will produce brief and localized increased turbidity within 25' of each piling. The project will have no impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions or water temperature. Work windows will prevent impacts to salmon and bull trout. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by installed grating in the structure. Grounding impacts will not occur because of the use of dock support arms. Based on the best available science, it is not clear at this time whether or not the presence of the structure will have negative impacts on migration and overall mortality of the listed fish species. See the above- mentioned section in the BE for a more detailed discussion of this issue. (5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: See 4 above Effects to PCE: See 4 above w] 7 (6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: Does not apply—the site is in a nearshore marine environment Effects to PCE: None Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect." Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.21 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 19 7.0 Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal—Puget Sound Bull Trout COE reference: Not known at this time Applicant: Mason County Parks and Trails Dept. Primary Constituent Elements The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are: (1) Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull. trout have been documented in streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 degrees F (0 to 22 degrees C) but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 degrees F (2 to 15 degrees C). These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence. Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from designation. Existing Conditions: The project is in a marine environment—Hood Canal. Effects to PCE:Not applicable. (2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths,velocities,and instream structures. Existing Conditions: See l above Effects to PCE: See 1 above (3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter. Existing Conditions: See 1. above Effects to PCE: See 1 above (4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout, or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation. This rule finds that reservoirs currently operating wider a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides management for PCEs as currently operated. Existing Conditions: See I above Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.22 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 20 Effects to PCE: See l above (5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity as a cold-water source. Existing Conditions: See l above Effects to PCE: The project will have no impacts on springs, seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface water at the site. (6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality- impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows. Existing Conditions: As noted in the Habitat Survey in the BE, there was a paucity of macroalgae at the site. There is no overhanging vegetation. There are previously documented surf smelt spa,iAming areas at the site. There are no large rocks, boulders or side channels at the site. Effects to PCE: The potential, direct impacts on foraging and migratory habitat caused by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to pile driving. Pile driving will take place during a period when bull trout are Ieast likely to be in the area, thereby minimizing noise and turbidity impacts on forage and migration habitat. (7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. Existing Conditions: See 6 above Effects to PCE: The indirect effects include reduction in prey resources (primarily forage fish). Again, pile driving will take place outside of the spawning period for forage fish, thereby removing any short or long-term impacts on these bull trout prey species. (8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that nonnal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited. Existing Conditions: See 6 above Effects to PCE: There will be a brief period of increased turbidity due to pile driving, which is not expected to cause significant impacts on bull trout habitat. Determination of Effect: No destruction or adverse modification i Conservation Measures: Conservation measures are seen in the Biological Evaluation for this project. I Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.23 Union Boat Ramp Renovation and Dock Construction Biological Evaluation August 2013 Page 21 Thank you for choosing The Wetland Corps as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Respectfully submitted,p y bm tted, The Wetland Corps Heather Lane Staff Wetland Specialist Le?ad�� Senior Biologist Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.24 yfypp - BELFAIR PROJECT 'y1y SITE MASON LAKE olk e SCE M� LAKE WEROCK MASON COUNTY WEWAN - E1m. SPENCER SR 102 LAKE ! PIERCE SHELTON COUNTY HARSTINE ISLAND ARCA[yA RO - -_ • L� ISABELLA I,.,yy - LAKE 101 1�1t�T TAYLOR TOWNE - UNION BOAT RAMP = 4sar -- THURSTON COUNTY h 5R 106 z E AICREA t0000, 0 10000, 20OW 30000' w UNION I?y 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROLES REFERENCE IPAR-2008-00005 PURPOSE: PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BOAT RAMP & EXISTING PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH DOCK SYSTEM Union Boat Ramp LOCATION: SEC. 31 & 32 T 22N, IN: CITY OF UNION RANGE 3W, W.M. COUNTY OF:MASON, WA DATUM: WASHINGTON STATE PLANE APPLICATION BY: MASON COUNTY PARKS COORDINATE SYSTEM SOUTH ZONE, NAD Vicinity Map & TRAILS 83/91, FROM GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM SHEET: 1 OF 5 ELEVATIONS NAVD 88/FROM GPS DATE: 8/23/13 DWG NAME: I1037-JARPA-1_Vcin.dwg Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.25 50 FLOATING DOCK - 8'x70' I 18" DEPTH OF'70b RRY SPALLS AT END OF RAMP TO PREVENT PROPELLER SCOUR - 210 S.F. 8 - 18" DIA. STEEL PILES _ (. LCw £[Ev '35 . HOOD CANAL HOOD CANAL — j f PRECAST CONRETE PLANK RAMP 12'xl6' - 192 S.F. QUARRY SPALL EMBANKMENT - 510 S.F. APPROX. GOVT_MEANDER LINE 2 : f 2 APPRpX 60y1. bIEAIyDER LINE 5'x64' ALUMINUM GANGWAY S :_1 ¢---MAN I14Ef ELEV; +3.44 -" — — — — — EXIST. CONC. RAMP TO MHxw ELEV. +8.35 "8 REMAIN IN PLACE OHW ELEV. +10.28`��9 - - - - _ — ___ - - - EXIST. BULKHEAD 8' WIDE CONCRETE APPROACH RAMP TO GANGWAY INFORMATION KIOSK EXISTING MARINA PAVED DRIVEWAY AND l I I BUILDING PARKING - 6,500t SF. 75' 25'Y � I N r n a o L`� \.\`. I{-�• Rin: Rim: { Ico lie !se 117 . 106 - - �Ro REFERENCE �jPAR-2008-00005 SR 0 20 40 80 PURPOSE: PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BOAT RAMP & EXISTING PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH DOCK SYSTEM Union Boat Ramp LOCATION: SEC. 31 & 32 T 22N, IN: CITY OF UNION RANGE 3W, W.M. COUNTY OF:MASON, WA DATUM: WASHINGTON STATE PLANE APPLICATION BY: MASON COUNTY PARKS COORDINATE SYSTEM SOUTH ZONE, NAD Site Plan & TRAILS 83/91, FROM GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM SHEET: 3 OF 5 ELEVATIONS NAVD 88/FROM GPS DATE: 8/23/13 DWG NAME: 11037-JARPA_3-S1tePian.dw Butch Boad 360277-3216 p.26 Cd Cx. L'i C1. ------------- ——————————————— :7 VIC CL � \\ } � � ` � � � � ! � � �� \ 04 0 /X . . . . . . LLJ � | | | | | | ! � ! $ ! m cli � � � � � � � `� \�� �) | | � . ; � � | | | | ! � � \\ - � � } : \ \ 7-1 / } ©\ IX rx cc %Q) REFERENCE #PAR-2008-00005 2 0, 00 r., to U1j pn CN 0 PURPOSE: PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BOAT RAMP & EXISTING PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH DOCK SYSTEM Union Boat Ramp LOCATION: SEC. 31 & 32 T 22N, IN: CITY OF UNION RANGE 3W, W.M. COUNTY OF:MASON, WA DATUM: WASHINGTON STATE PLANE APPLICATION BY: MASON COUNTY PARKS COORDINATE SYSTEM SOUTH ZONE, NAD Ramp & Dock Section & TRAILS 83/91, FROM GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM Scale:3/16"= I'-V SHEET: 5 OF 5 ELEVATIONS NAVD 88/FROM GPS DING NAME. 110.37JARPA-5—X—Sectn.dwg DATE: 8/23/13 I r �++m co UD D X� i n D �v m 74' FLOATING DOCK ! o O z (i 11 j WITH 24" 0 NDPE:PIPE FLOATS 1 z n F g rn n } \ rr � n z W o CONK. RAMP / 1 +20'-+--� \ TYP 16' DOCK SECTION 60 0 0 v 26'-7j" 1 64' GANGWAY—1'r �"+ 4 SPAN 16" 0 GALV. STEEL PILE, TYP. �rr-- �g 1� aR S u' Mocn G' �o co can g g a co 2 z Lo" 4 "s =..! 0 rn n ! NEW PRECAST CONCRETE PLANK / I RAMP, 16'x12', AREA-192 SF. 2 QUARRY SPALLS, m I ! AREA=730 SF. EX. CONC. RAMP !! ,� AREA=2,280 SF. RAMP do DOCK 14 CROSS SECTION d `a ; p O u (� 12.20 TOP OF APPROACH RAMP/ABUTMENT 18" 0 GALV. STEEL PILE, TYP, 10.29 TOP OF RAMP RAMP do DOCK o O AT DRIVE CROSS SECTION FLOATING DOCK WITH 24" 0 HOPE oCD PIPE FLOA TS 20. 20 v cn D n Z v v 12 W 10.271 16 z n > 4 - --- -- -- -- IIj II.:: . --- ----ME AN.LTS N - OD D 0 8. O -4 -------- _ MCW ELE1 +?` 35_ -- _ -. ----4-84 -8 - - +O OvN;>t (A v D QARRYSPALLS TO 18 DEPTH 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 220 2+40 2+60 2+ 0s �A z D m EX. GRADE AT RAMP CL v� ONEW RAMP -' -3.00 TOP OF RAMP N z n END OF EXISTING RAMP m -1.99 TOP OF RAMP a -2.62 GROUND x N Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.28 1 .._ "A \ Hood Canal 1a" A r: ..y.. __-_____ _- S Hood Canal � horebne i tProlect 1- ,'- Mix O SR 106 \ 3 ' Propg ft Owners Parcel Numbers Mason County Parks & Trails Dept. 32231-88-88888 PO Box 2286, 32231-00-60000 Shelton, WA 98584 Julie Saari — 32232-50 02002 5091 E SR 106 32231-51-02001 Union, WA 98592 O3 North Forty Transportation, LLC 32232-50-07001 PO Box 305 32231-51-01001 Union, WA 98592 0 Terry G. Brown 32232-50-08002 PO Box 237 Union, WA 98592 0 State of Washington 32231-00-60000 State Lands Division 32232-00-60000 PO Box 47440 Olympia, WA 98504-7440 REFERENCE #PAR-2008-00005 PURPOSE: PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BOAT RAMP & EXISTING PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH DOCK SYSTEM Union Boat Ramp LOCATION: SEC. 31 & 32 T 22N, IN: CITY OF UNION RANGE 3W, W.M. COUNTY OF:MASON, WA DATUM: WASHINGTON STATE PLANE APPLICATION BY: MASON COUNTY PARKS COORDINATE SYSTEM SOUTH ZONE, NAD Adjacent Property Owners & TRAILS 83/91, FROM GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM Scale: 1"= 100' SHEET: 2 OF 5 ELEVATIONS NAVD 88/FROM GPS DATE: 8/23/13 DWG NAME:11037-JARPA_2-Ad' cnt Prop.dwg r Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.29 r� H« rfCf Y!' �•b:i i'ea, r .1 r IAN !I{ /f!r r f �iy r 1 d :lbw! '] t1(rlp J7•- k {r('Sj3 ��a > f7 f ! r ,i4p R J J /s(" e, Jy/ •it ,6j� -ft /LDiySj(r f s `irSG�_}J � TFLrr/^J 3'� �;� fY i•;;/Rlf, WON. i J t .•' Y^'d!?�r. �� Sys rr� .Jz � � j1! i �y✓'� tirL�.gt�Jf� ;y"�lY:rl •fri` i't ><'R Y i;�{�t: /l � , ti�t'l� /�,3'�i!�ie,�f•'�y r J,� ��. ff rr. �.�ei'^:• �..,srr�Y {�.. �•F% :J... :wJiY'Y:J SS[tirt-F�Fih�V�Y.'t�••1•,..�.�'r.✓y IirT��. `'.c�f��c'.: K...i^.'�;�r' =�'s..�^'i ;:f ;�jyr- f!`•..g .T •ri_ �:yr;f'r?r(;1 �... :: %%fit".',�''r e'i.:: 2ii6_(1 'Y>tpa;({..'�i1)i.,:.'f.'( �Y..•'s_fe`s;.,:,::rj,:..:;i'i i.: Z. ;r `•z Photo 2: Project area showing existing ramp looking from the east. THE WETLAND CORPS II Butch Boad 360-277-3216 p.30 ;-.:: ,;•Y.:i� - � � �16 Aj,�(''4 f`KIM F t ✓ Si �ro �7�a` sr,' ��4 i:r.: �! 9'�Y1�✓'�r Nrrr" t ft, �',.'�/J,S t '! x• 4 •, I •�s+dters, blr .. �: r fir.�.y x ' �x„�,�tn Yfi t� - x�r�� say�✓?;.,.1 �!t1x+.•ls �`'".:�?1��; t�'�, ,�! r ''ufr "JI�;HrhLsi, 6� *rr�h�� ZYw .nr Ec9°4n•o'kr�l�„�di9kYi6�7�' 95g9�"..$�,r�aa'�i'�5S'3ftir � .err ,.a. _ r t ✓ A .c Ir3�T ff S r y ���:� ���u`d'l+trlrl�t�''Y-/b' � ,rr �."�-Jr ;�r r .r r•t r�y�� ,j�fi.�C t�-,.:,FsP � c+�•;a�-L.Y•r ' . ...,!'::u iSr} . (� y r t,.,.r'. ,t :'r j v�,a:.,,y -"y';'�' ;c Kr,� t4 02 % +� Olt 4D- � s `y Ud H t y f'Yk��,"}sf l(.�.. ,4++daj�Y�',a'lr'^' +/st('y •'tlr' 7�'R',kw-nC,€..lt- r 1`c"i/-` A'f, 1 ti�.T` -Jat s�fl+�„ Sir4•}r � ME .. Ir �tffi'^' ys.�r+,S` �, � I �{f flYJ1 ��y ��� ,�,,,��w�w��` '" �., 7 �p��'Tf'z�;���v��r'Y,�y/9�'.+r,p,?,^ �� •�:� ..�.��;�• ++'JY! � r�`�i rFs�i.`£' !f� r r ;f r ate. l d ' r v S rN Photo 1: Project area showing existing ramp looking from—OHWM. THE WETLAND CORPS i